May 2004: C6 Corvette Design: Reality or Restraint?

[c4c5specialist]

Hi there,
Personally, I love every Corvette out there, but in this case even moreso.
Outside of the basic frame design platform, every part of this car is new.
Systems integration, noise reduction, powerplant and driveline, comfort, ease of driving, has been substantially improved upon.
Revolution, yes, absolutely.
Drive one, and you will see for yourself.
Allthebest, c4c5

[doylede]

Rob,

You're dead on. The C5 is the culmination of almost 50 years of Corvette refinment. People who think the C6 should be a radical departure are throw-backs to the 50's when Detroit just changed the sheet metal evey year. These are the same folks that believe NASCAR is STOCK CAR RACING.

Your analogy to the Porsche is very apt.

The C5 is the best ever Corvette. The C6 MAY improve on the C5. Adding power is a good start. The claimed cd of .28 improves the C5 cd of .29. But looking at the C6 front, it is hard not to decide that drag will be increased. Drag is the product of cd and effictive frontal area. Does the C6 have more frontal area than the C5? Sure looks like it.

But the C6 claims 180 top speed over the 174 of my 2000. That seems a waste of 50 extra HP.

All of this is nit-picking. The good thing and the right thing is that the C6 draws on the C5. As your Porsche reference shows, when you get it right, refine it.

[Evolution1980]

However, let's expand on one of the big reasons for the sucess of Porsche, OK? True the 911 has not changed significantly in layman eyes for many, many years - though we all know that MANY changes have ocurred in the chassis and engine areas. But another thing that has added to Porsche's success is the addition of lower and upper end models which, as you know, I endorse for Corvette. Beginning with the 914, 924 based cars, and now the Boxster, Porsche has been grooming their version of entry level buyers for decades now. Although less than successful with the 928 Porsche has always mangaged to have upper end cars available and they are doing it again.

I would like to see 3 completely different vettes offered on three chassis...

LongTimer,

Unless I'm reading you wrong, I'd have this to say about your thoughts...
You mention that Porsche has done well by diversifying their product line. The 911 not changing much, the 914, 924, etc... But to compare this to vette is a little bit off. Porsche needs to be compared to GM and the vette needs to be compared to the 911. To say that there should be other vettes just like there are different Porsches, I think the correct analogy is that GM needs to create other models just like Porsche creates other models. Or at least create a the vette on another platform. That exact thing essentially already happened, and continues to happen to some extent.

GM did create other platforms for other levels of buyers. The Camaro, the Firebird were those cars. They were the 914, the 924. Granted, they never really had a boxter comparison unless you would consider that one Pontiac prototype 'vert (I forget the name). And you still have the 'vette' being released on other platforms. The new GTO, and the Caddies to name a couple off the top of my head.

So I think GM does in fact diversify just like Porsche. They just may not do it as well for whatever reasons. But the Corvette is simililar to the 911 or Carrera as the car pretty much been the pinnacle of the respective companies offerings. (With the execption that Porsche plays in the supercar field much much more than GM. Who's going to buy a $200K GM vehicle???)

[Edmond]

Who's going to buy a $200K GM vehicle???

You never know. There are a people who are going to shell out $140K for the Ford GT when it's out.

We can't compare Porsche and GM; it's like apples and oranges. Porsche is a specific line and GM is the whole company. If we compared Porsche and Vette', that would be different.

[Hib Halverson]

The thing I can't understand about people liking it or not liking it is that no one has driven one yet.

That will change in a little more than a month and you'll read about it hear on CAC in a little under two months. I can't be more specific until Rob makes his announcement about the second round of CAC's C6 coverage.

Rob....

I'm sure with the technology and engineering that GM has put into the C6, a drive will shut many of us up.

That's an understatment.

But the C6 claims 180 top speed over the 174 of my 2000. That seems a waste of 50 extra HP.

The observed top speed GM states for the C6 targa is 186 not 180. That's 12mph faster than a stock C5 Targa might go, but I have to ask c4c5specialist if that "174" is his observed top speed for his 2000 or what he thinks it might do?

At those speeds, it takes a ton of horsepower to go faster so my guess is 12mph is all 50hp will get ya. I should note that the 186 was done at the Desert Proving Ground

[04cmnthru]

Its cost a lot of R&D money nowadays to produce a completely new car and car companies are having a tough time at making real money in today's environment. For example, just getting a vehicle Federally certified costs a boat load of cash. Also, production costs are only part of the story - you may have heard of GM's outstanding pension liabilities. My point is that most car companies cannot affort to introduce really "revolutionary" redesigns - most of what is offered is based on a mix of old and new.

I assume that is part of the reason Chevy purposefully went to an evolutionary design to save some money somewhere along the line. And while I agree that the design is evolutionary, they did put money into the engineering that gives us 50 more hp, better handling, improved service intervals, improved materials, and better build quality - so it may be more "revolutionary" than meets the eye. And many of the changes were things Vette owners were complaining about - so give them credit for listening. And to top it all off, Chevy has to hit a price "bogey" or the car will lose its customer base - Chevy still has to have some "volume" in sales.

Just remember that the C2 and C3 were alot more alike than different - i.e., chassis was basically unchanged as were engines, trans etc. The techology really wasn't that radical although the body design was. I guess its where do you want your money. For me, I want it in performance and build quality.

ALthough the car design is not a radical departure, it certainly stays true to the heritage and won't be mistaken for anything else. Peace.

[Edmond]

I assume that is part of the reason Chevy purposefully went to an evolutionary design to save some money somewhere along the line. And while I agree that the design is evolutionary, they did put money into the engineering that gives us 50 more hp, better handling, improved service intervals, improved materials, and better build quality - so it may be more "revolutionary" than meets the eye.

I agree with the saving money part. However, I do not agree that they put money into the engineering to give us 50 more hp or better handling.

Those 50 more hp were already around and they just used tried and true methods. They didn't have to do any new research or development; IMO, that was already there with the current Z06 line. And that's with less displacement. In terms of handling, it was again there with the current Z06 line.

[Evolution1980]

We can't compare Porsche and GM; it's like apples and oranges. Porsche is a specific line and GM is the whole company. If we compared Porsche and Vette', that would be different.

Who is the parent company of Porsche?

[Edmond]

Who is the parent company of Porsche?

Don't know the answer to that one. I know someone here does.

[04cmnthru]

I agree with the saving money part. However, I do not agree that they put money into the engineering to give us 50 more hp or better handling.

Those 50 more hp were already around and they just used tried and true methods. They didn't have to do any new research or development; IMO, that was already there with the current Z06 line. And that's with less displacement. In terms of handling, it was again there with the current Z06 line.

Generally agree but still think the C6 represents some R&D and engineering "creative thinking". The C6 engine has to undergo its own emissions and durability testing to meet Federal standards and quality control since it is a new engine. While the general "technology" has been there, its application is not exactly a no brainer. If 50 ponies were that easy to pick up, then I don't know why there are so many posts on this forum of owners having to spend several thousand dollars to get them - and still we read of posts where daily drivability is affected. So, IMHO, 50 hp requires some engineering both in terms of making it and making it useful (putting it on the ground).

If as Chevy says the new Vette has over 80% new parts, then there certainly is R&D involved. I agree that the handling was there in the Z06 if thats what Chevy wanted the base car to be - but they didn't - we all know that the Z06 is has an edge that the base C5 doesn't have. You won't find that "edge" in the base C6 either (from what I have read).

[Edmond]

Generally agree but still think the C6 represents some R&D and engineering "creative thinking". The C6 engine has to undergo its own emissions and durability testing to meet Federal standards and quality control since it is a new engine. While the general "technology" has been there, its application is not exactly a no brainer. If 50 ponies were that easy to pick up, then I don't know why there are so many posts on this forum of owners having to spend several thousand dollars to get them - and still we read of posts where daily drivability is affected. So, IMHO, 50 hp requires some engineering both in terms of making it and making it useful (putting it on the ground).

If as Chevy says the new Vette has over 80% new parts, then there certainly is R&D involved. I agree that the handling was there in the Z06 if thats what Chevy wanted the base car to be - but they didn't - we all know that the Z06 is has an edge that the base C5 doesn't have. You won't find that "edge" in the base C6 either (from what I have read).

I think the increase in displacement would require the engine to not work as hard to make power as a smaller engine.

IMO, I think the C6 is going to raise the bar higher. And when the Z06 version comes out; watch out! I can only imagine what they have in store for that car. If Chevy can mass produce the C5 Z06 and sell it at that price with a 350; I can only wonder what they'll do with more displacement and determination.

[04cmnthru]

I think the increase in displacement would require the engine to not work as hard to make power as a smaller engine.

IMO, I think the C6 is going to raise the bar higher. And when the Z06 version comes out; watch out! I can only imagine what they have in store for that car. If Chevy can mass produce the C5 Z06 and sell it at that price with a 350; I can only wonder what they'll do with more displacement and determination.

I am with you on that - Vettes will continue to offer the best overall performance value and that's something to get excited about - - gotta be able to kick azz on Vipers and future Cobras. Peace

[Edmond]

I am with you on that - Vettes will continue to offer the best overall performance value and that's something to get excited about - - gotta be able to kick azz on Vipers and future Cobras. Peace

Oh yeah, Corvette's can definitely hang with them. I'm not flaming here, but I talk to people who hardly know anything about cars and all they say is, "Yeah, the Viper has a V10. The Corvette only has a V8." Or they'll say, "The Viper is $80,000 and the Corvette is only $50,000." Someone needs to explain to those people that there isn't an absolute correlation between price/cylinders and performance.

But I think the C5 owners have taken an image beating. I think the stereotype of a C5 owner is the guy who only takes his car out on the weekend when it has 0% chance of rain and plays golf and goes 5 under the speed limit. The stereotype seems to be some old guy who can't have fun anymore. Of course, those are the opinions of people who have never owned a Corvette before.

[Cape Cod Bob]

My 20 minute ride in a C6 6-speed with Z51 performance package is that it's a ZO6 but the top comes off and you have all that luggage space in the rear. Shifts better and the throw is shorter. Interior is nicer and the new runflats are excellent. Sound system rocks! Handling is as good as my ZO6 from what I could gather on a fast run through the back roads of Bowling Green.
Only negative is the front plate goof. I'm trying to think if this is the 1st year Corvette has not provided a built-in front license plate spot...or the 1st year on a Corvette where 3 holes have to be DRILLED into the front of the car to attach a front plate.

Bob

[Rob]

My 20 minute ride in a C6 6-speed with Z51 performance package is that it's a ZO6 but the top comes off and you have all that luggage space in the rear. Shifts better and the throw is shorter. Interior is nicer and the new runflats are excellent. Sound system rocks! Handling is as good as my ZO6 from what I could gather on a fast run through the back roads of Bowling Green.
Only negative is the front plate goof. I'm trying to think if this is the 1st year Corvette has not provided a built-in front license plate spot...or the 1st year on a Corvette where 3 holes have to be DRILLED into the front of the car to attach a front plate.

Bob

Bob,

Thanks for sharing your experiences with the C6!